Auditors: Is US overselling diplomacy in Iraq?

Muslims and Christians chant anti-terrorist slogans during a funeral of slain Christians in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010. The victims were killed Sunday when gunmen stormed a church during mass and took the entire congregation hostage. The attack, claimed by an al-Qaida-linked organization, was the deadliest recorded against Iraq's Christians since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion unleashed a wave of violence against them. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
(Khalid Mohammed - AP)

A wounded boy recovers after a bombing in the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010. Rapid-fire bombings and mortar strikes in mostly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad killed and wounded scores on Tuesday, calling into question the ability of Iraqi security forces to protect the capital. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
(Karim Kadim - AP)

Medics treat a wounded boy after a bombing in the Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City in Baghdad, Iraq, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010. Rapid-fire bombings and mortar strikes in mostly Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad killed and wounded scores on Tuesday, calling into question the ability of Iraqi security forces to protect the capital. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
(Karim Kadim - AP)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration could be overstating what U.S. diplomats can do to contain Iraq's ethnic and sectarian tensions without U.S. military forces, a State Department audit concluded Tuesday, raising fresh concerns about the planned pullout of American troops next year.

The auditors also questioned whether American diplomats who remain behind will be adequately protected against insurgent violence, and their report faulted Washington for its planning of the transition from a U.S. military-led mission in Iraq to one run by American civilians in 2011.

The audit's findings echo worries expressed by some U.S. defense analysts and former diplomats. They say hard-won security gains in Iraq could crumble if U.S. forces leave on schedule.

In the latest outbreak of violence, bombings and mortar strikes killed dozens and wounded scores across Baghdad's mostly Shiite neighborhoods Tuesday. The bloodshed came just two days after gunmen in the Iraqi capital held a Christian congregation hostage in a siege that ended with 58 people dead.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the U.S. condemns the bombings and stands ready to "assist as requested" by Iraqi authorities in pursuing those responsible for the attacks.

"These are reprehensible attacks by extremists attempting to stoke tension between people from different religious and ethnic backgrounds in Iraq who seek to live in peace," Toner said.

In its report, the State Department's office of inspector general said stability in Iraq may be years away. It warned that the failure of Iraqi political leaders to form a unity government has interfered with the "urgent task" of planning for Washington's post-2011 diplomatic role.

Stephen Biddle, an Iraq watcher at the Council on Foreign Relations, said it will be difficult for U.S. diplomats to keep a lid on Sunni-Shiite and Arab-Kurd rivalries in the absence of a sizable American military presence.

"Normally, stabilizing a situation like this requires peacekeepers," he said. "Peacekeepers are soldiers. That doesn't say there aren't important and valuable things that government civilians can do. But ... security protection is important in this environment, and that's not something State Department civilians do."

The report said the first six months of 2012 are likely to be "especially dangerous as extremists test U.S. resolve and Iraqi security forces' capabilities." It questioned whether the U.S. can meet President Barack Obama's goal of ensuring a safe work environment for remaining U.S. personnel in Iraq in 2012. "Security risks are expected to increase," the report said.

The auditors said the State Department should "stringently evaluate" whether it has the means to ensure its workers' safety in Iraq.

The report credited the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad with making impressive steps in planning for the transition from U.S. military control. But the planning process "requires clearer and more timely high-level focus and policy guidance from Washington," including the White House, it said.